TCF Task 242 – Managed Motorway Ground Investigation Process Improvement

1. TCF Task 242 – Managed Motorway Ground Investigation Process Improvement Lean Project Improvement Presentation Slides

2. Objectives • Understand how Ground Investigations are currently undertaken • Develop an improved process with realistic timescales • Ultimate deliverable would be a best practise guide (beyond the scope of this commission)

3. Original Commission and Appraisal Work • Ground Investigation (GI) surveys on Tranche 1 Managed Motorway schemes were perceived to be costly in terms of budget and programme. These issues were perceived to be related to the procurement and delivery mechanism utilising the MAC. • Jacobs was originally commissioned to prepare a business case for setting up a national ground investigation framework

4. Ground Investigation Framework Study Findings • Jacobs collected and collated data following request for information covering: • Procurement route • Scope of work • Programme • Costs • Traffic Management • Other comments • Data was received from 4 managed motorway schemes, 3 other motorway schemes, 2 highway schemes and 2 existing frameworks

5. Single occurrence GI costs Since GI is conventionally undertaken as a phased process, in some instances, this is just the cost so far Time M4 / M5 anticipated 67 shifts, actual 75 shifts MMM anticipated 10 weeks, actual 20 weeks Not all schemes provided data!!!! Ground Investigation Framework Study Findings

6. Ground Investigation Framework Study Findings • Procurement routes: • Many routes are currently implemented • No single option presented itself as an ideal solution • Framework: • Advantages include one-off procurement and greater consistency / visibility of rates • Disadvantages include: • Initial set-up time / costs, may not overcome traffic management issues • Lack of integration with the MAC and other network operations • Cost and programme could still be key issues if not procurement related. • MAC • Advantages include knowledge of the site, TM, quicker mobilisation (operational planning expertise, integration with other network occupancy, etc) • Disadvantages include perceived excessive costs, programme overruns lack of ownership and under resourcing management of the GI

7. Ground Investigation Framework Study Findings • Cost and programme comparison: • Little evidence that rates are inconsistent or unreasonable across procurement routes • Procurement route has little effect on programme • Traffic Management: • Greater control and flexibility of TM if GI procured through MAC • Undertaking TM flexibly, managed by short-term programming and effective communication improves efficiency • In some instances, TM costs were approaching half the cost of the investigation • Technical scope for the GI can significantly affect cost & programme if change is required during the works.

8. Ground Investigation Framework Study Findings • Outcome: • Large quantity of factual and anecdotal evidence collected • Procurement is not necessarily the issue – jumped to a solution without fully understanding the problem • Findings relate to issues around: • Traffic Management • Planning • Process • Appropriate technical scoping and specification

9. Measure • What generally happens: GI data is used to manage the geotechnical risks associated with the construction of infrastructure and is used to inform the design. The ultimate objective is to produce a safe design that is technically and commercially efficient. Traditionally GI is a phased process aimed at reducing uncertainty and risk as a scheme develops. Initial GI undertaken based on “initial design” and used to gain a general understanding of the ground conditions, design develops, detailed GI required, design possibly changes further, supplementary GI required, etc, etc Design Development (during Stage 2) Detailed Design (during Stage 5) Construction (design may change further) Prepare Desk Study & Scope Initial GI Is known to have occurred more than once in Stage 2 Scope Detailed GI Is known to have occurred more than once in Stage 5 Scope Supplementary GI M62 J25-30 £400,000 M62 J25-30 £95,000 Procure GI Procure GI Procure GI M62 J25-30 £200,000 Undertake GI Undertake GI Undertake GI Testing & Reporting Testing & Reporting Testing & Reporting PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION

10. Measure • Manchester Managed Motorway Value Stream Mapping exercise • Key issues encountered: • Adverse Weather • Discovery of Services • CDM Co-ordination • Scope Quality • MAC Pricing • Landowner Objections • Great Crested Newts

11. What went well: No accidents / incidents Weekly GI progress meetings Consultants came together for a common approach Management of network occupancy AOne+ and Costain flexibility What could’ve gone better: Too many designers / CDMCs Technical specification more appropriate to the operating environment Insufficient on-site management Project Sponsor unfamiliar with the process Greater time and effort required in the preparation for the works (planning of shifts, access and network occupancy) Lack of permanent site ecologist Time of year – weather, embargos Measure Summary of Manchester Managed Motorway GI

12. Measure • Value Adding / Non-Value Adding process map

13. Measure • NVA elements identified: • CDM Role Consideration • Specification submission to MAC • Mobilisation • TA process to approve the use of Sonic Borehole Technology • Discovery of Services • Pegging Out Services • Great Crested Newts • Landowner Objections

14. Measure • Failure Modes and Effects Analysis Workshop held on 14 February, key failure modes and causes: • Failure to do boreholes in planned locations due to services in the verge found during GI (see next slide) • Delay appointing single CDM-C role – too many CDM-Cs / Designers, lack of appreciation • Reworking of GI scopes due to design changes and additions • GI design – change in GI technique to reflect operating environment during the works

15. Measure • Services located in the verge are “pegged” out by the TechMAC using similar images / information • On site the GI Contractor has no indication where exactly the services (cables) are or how many • The number of services in the verge and the inability to work around them forced the GI Contractor to move to the hardshoulder during the night

16. Improve • Improvement Workshop held on 22 March 2011 to: • Validate the current situation • Validate occurrences on Manchester Managed Motorway • Test macro improvement options • Test process improvement options • Why do we need to do GI on Managed Motorway schemes? • To manage the risks to obtain a safe and economic design • To obtain a level of confidence in ground condition • GI very rarely affects the gantry locations

17. Improve • Current situation validated: • M62 Junction 25 to 30 about to undertake third GI – attributed to design changes • Birmingham Box Phase 3 about to undertake second GI – design changes and need to determine foundation (pile) solution • Manchester Managed Motorway GI validated against occurrences on Birmingham Box: • Programme pressures lead to limited planning time • Competition on network for road space booking (TM) • The GI design / work scope didn’t properly understand and reflect the constraints of the operational environment

18. Improve • Macro Improvement Options – no pre-construction GI • Contractor undertakes GI during Construction Phase. The key differences between current situation are: • No GI pre-construction • Would require more designer input during construction • Potential saving on TM duplication, i.e. during options then construction • Significant reduction in the chance of service strikes and the ongoing need to re-position exploratory holes • Potential lack of appreciation of major geology features / issues • Dependence on site environment • Could increase risk allocation leading to issues with target cost

19. Improve • Macro Improvement Options – no pre-construction GI • What would we do? • Set out and agree approach to GI and geotechnical certification (Statement of Intent). • Desk Study – Preliminary Sources Study Report • Isolated GI to target key risk areas, i.e. 1 or 2 boreholes during pre-construction to augment PSSR. Challenge the need for GI at this stage and require rigorous justification. • Prepare matrix of foundation solutions for Deliver Partner to undertake Target Cost including risk allocation • During construction: • TM established on site • Verges cleared (services, barriers, etc) • Undertake GI at exact locations • Testing and interpretation • Select foundation solution • Structural and geotechnical certification • Construction • Feedback report to capture GI data

20. For / Benefits: The perfect “pull” project Design fixed and GI undertaken with certainty Significant pre-construction cost saving GI only undertaken once – cost savings Efficiency – TM, verge clearance, site welfare Stakeholder interface more controlled Standard solutions deliver potential efficiency Potentially forces Designer / Delivery Partner to value manage the GI Against / Disbenefits: Potential to impact duration of construction period Increased pre-construction risk The AIP (structures certification) process GI in construction could be blocking the site Conservative foundation solutions Greater designer input during construction (good or bad – undecided!!) Implications on perceived rigid structure of PCF Improve • Macro Improvement Options – no pre-construction GI

21. Macro Improvement Options • Macro Improvement Options – Single pre-construction GI • Designer / Delivery Partner has one opportunity to undertake GI. The key differences between current situation are: • The need for GI is challenged • Undertake GI once • Undertake GI as late as possible during Stage 5 detailed design • Greater chance of design fixity during detailed design

22. Improve • Macro Improvement Options – Single pre-construction GI • What would we do? • Agree approach – prepare Statement of Intent • Prepare Preliminary Sources Study Report • Prepare strategy, scope and specification and challenge the need for GI • Procurement • Move into Phase 5 – Delivery Partner appointed • Undertake GI • The GI would then be used during Detailed Design and Target Cost preparation with the objective is to reduce / manage risk allocation

23. For / Benefits: Cost saving by undertaking once GI results / findings can inform the detailed design Should reduces risk (time / cost) during preparation of Target Cost Follows the current PCF process Fewer site visits, potentially reduces impact on stakeholders Potentially forces Designer / Delivery Partner to value manage the GI Against / Disbenefits: The GI is still undertaken before target cost design freeze, i.e. the design may change Potential inflexibility of undertaking single GI Potential to over scope GI if it’s only undertaken once Still has many of the potential disadvantages of the current approach in terms of potential costs / delays / TM / conflicts in network occupancy Improve • Macro Improvement Options – Single pre-construction GI

24. Improve • Further points to consider from the workshop: • GI is only undertaken during construction stage of Network Rail’s electrification schemes • Design the GI (techniques and scope of work) with the operating environment in mind • Don’t assume GI needs to be undertake immediately • Two hit GI is the traditional way for green-field schemes • We are not Value Managing GIs • Agreed by Designers and TAA at the workshop that no GI in pre-construction phase should be the starting point

25. Improve • Lessons learned: • Agree roles and responsibilities at the start • Understand the constraints, embargos, working times, etc • Write the specification for the GI with due regard for the site constraints • Recognise all constraints include services, working space, barrier, fencing, lane restrictions, etc • Get to know and liaise with the MAC and Network Operations Managers • Resource the site works adequately (day to day project management) • Engage with the Environmental Coordinator early • Agree GI Scope / Specification with TAA around a table • Agree format of the pricing schedule early (inc. level of detail) • Undertake GI as late as possible in the programme

26. Improve • High-level process: • Undertake GI during construction should be the default route • Project Sponsors, Project Managers and TAA would need to be convinced to undertake GI earlier PCF Stage 2 – Options PCF Stage 5 – Pre-Construction PCF Stage 6 – Construction Scheme Concept and Outline Design Preliminary Design Environmental and Economic Assessments Detailed Design Target Cost Construction This is the default route Yes Undertake isolated GI for key risks if req Prepare strategy, scope & specification Undertake GI Testing & Reporting Key decision Data Gathering Preliminary Sources Study Report Undertake GI during construction No Prepare strategy, scope & specification Undertake single stage GI Testing & Reporting This is the non-preferred route